Hippo

Thanks for replying, but I think you might've misunderstood / misread my original post. I've gone over it, and I think I have explained myself clearly.

Hopefully it's not bad form to bump this up. I use the kneeboard A LOT in VR, and it's a real pain that its bindings are unusable whilst the sim is paused. It also doesn't make much sense to me. I'm assuming it's a few minor changes to a table to enable this. Please consider. And no, sorry, I haven't tried the 3rd party app suggested. Old dogs, tricks, etc.

I am certainly not a fan of EA / pre-purchase. Whenever I have gone down this road (and I doubt that I ever will again), I have always accepted that I could lose my money and end up with nothing. I would say to anyone that if they don't accept this, then they shouldn't partake. Personally, I am willing to forgive ED if they might've bitten off more than they could chew with the F-18, and would be ok with paying the same amount again if the current economics mean they can't finish all the features. What I won't be doing is paying for aircraft I don't want to support features (i.e. base engine, VR performance improvements) and aircraft that I do want. I don't see why the base product should be free, considering the amount of work it takes to keep it updated, and think that a lot of ED's problems stem from this decision.

I have an X52 Pro, so only 1 axis, I have read others also mention "walking the throttles" so perhaps having two axes helps somewhat. Don't get me wrong, I can certainly manage to land, and my adjusted throttle curve does make it easier. But it seems almost impossible to hold a constant descent rate, and it takes far too long for thrust changes to compensate. I find it implausible that this would be the case IRL, as it would be too risky for the pilot's safety. Night case IIIs are more challenging with the latest OB now that the carrier lights don't come on. :)

When configured flaps full, gear down, on AoA and trying to maintain a stable approach (glide) path (even with no wind) I notice that: 1. There is a very long delay between moving the throttles and the path changing (by watching the FPM and descent rate). 2. Even after setting power, there are long, slow oscillations with the FPM and DR taking a very long time to settle (if ever). Q: What's the latest opinion on these, is the FM finalised in this respect? These behaviours seem unrealistic to me (i.e. it can't be this much hassle IRL). I have gone to a lot of trouble to adjust throttle curves so I have very fine control over thrust - however, even the minutest motion of the throttles translates to considerable (and highly delayed) changes and oscillations of FPM position and descent rate. By stable I mean descent rate and flight path marker position not varying. **** I usually take the time to search before posting, but on this occasion I suspect the matter has been discussed often and at length - and simply couldn't bear to trawl through it all. I was hoping that someone who keeps up with this can just clear it up for me with a quick answer. Thanks.

I tried to do the survey, but just wanted to give everything a 1. I just gave up with it. Why not have a survey where people are forced to rank the items in order of preference? So, I'll just add my general preference that basics should come first (i.e. FM and stuff in the NATOPS). Weapons second. The F-18 is extremely complex, and I'm very impressed with what has been achieved already. Although it would be great to get everything done yesterday, I have no problem with the current pace. Much more important that all these features are still planned for delivery.

2.5.6.47404 From my usual very simple test, I reckon this is now the second update that has shown a slight performance improvement. The issue with the ka-50 insurgents mission has gone. So moving in the right direction, I think.

Thanks. I had misunderstood - I see now that the change is only going to be noticeable for very close up objects. I've tried the setting now. On first impressions, I do think a setting around 55 - 60 seems better for the F-16. There's another "issue" with the F-16, in that if you're sitting in a normal chair (as I am) as soon as you catch sight of the seat it feels wrong (as it should). Looks like I need to get a recliner.

Thanks for posting that. I haven't gone over all the replies, but my question would be: fine, you rescale the cockpit, but aren't you rescaling everything in the world also? Does this mean that (say) buildings, trees and cars will be a different size? So you'll have differently sized world objects for each aircraft if you adjust IPD per aircraft - that can't be right. I've also always felt, that after ejecting, my virtual me's legs and feet are way too small, and I'm hardly a giant. From the post: This is what is commonly referred to as a cop out. Although I am sympathetic.

Not just me, it seems... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270430

PLS ignore: somehow managed to wander into and search in wrong sub-forum. Realised later already reported. And not a bug anyway.

Well, according to the latest DCS manual, p51: Has there ever been a detailed explanation from ED on what this setting actually does, and how it interacts with, e.g., the Oculus IPD setting? (And why "IPD distance", when the D already stands for distance? Doesn't inspire much confidence). And I get that everyone's eyes are different, but they don't change when moving from cockpit to cockpit. This topic is the sort of thing that would make for a really interesting technical article: explaining the maths, how it's all been implemented in DCS, and how to ensure everything is set up properly for a particular HMD. It's this sort of communication that I would really like to see from ED.

A lot of what you say seems right, and yet... ...everything does "feel" teeny-tiny: switches, the buttons on the ICP. And you have to ask, if the stick seems too small, why should it? I own a Cougar, and it seems much smaller than that. The ka-50 and a-10 feel enormous in comparison. The f-18 feels just right.

Thanks, great post. I've avoided playing around with the IPD setting: For one thing, I'm perfectly happy with the F-18 and haven't had to change anything for that. If a setting is correct for one aircraft, shouldn't it be the same for all of them? I'm using a Rift-S, the Oculus software knows my IPD, so I don't see why I should have to dial in an IPD in game. Even if I do, shouldn't it be possible for ED to say exactly what the setting should be for a specific HMD? I've not found (doesn't mean one isn't out there) a satisfactory explanation for what the IPD setting in ED actually does - I seem to remember reading somewhere that it has nothing to do with IPD and does something entirely different. I shall be going through the forums again I think.

I don't know if it's just because I spend almost of all of my time in the F-18, but with the F-16 cockpit in VR, it seems like the scale's off. E.g. the flight stick looks tiny; but everything seems smaller than it should be. Just me I suppose?

Unfortunately - no. If only... From the OP:

I don't think so. The only thing I've ever changed is the masksize, and that did not require it.

I don't think so. If what you're after is 8x, you need to use the value 4 - #define ENABLE_DIFFUSE_SS 4 // Albedo texture supersampling. 0=off, 1=2x, 2=4x, 3=6x, 4=8x

Thank you, as always, for all your efforts. However, for the first time, with 2.5.6.47224, I am not seeing the improvements in performance I have come to expect. There is an improvement, but it is maybe 1/3 of what I've been used to from your mod. This is probably down to something I'm doing, or to my limited testing, and please don't think I'm complaining, but I just thought I'd throw it out there to see if anyone else agrees.

Thank you ED. Extremely generous, and much appreciated.

Same thing happening in mission "Gauntlet", "Altitude"

OK. I've just reverted to 2.5.6.45915, and the Ka-50 Instant Action Insurgents mission does not show the severe fps issue now present in 2.5.6.47224. TBH, I was not aware that this issue had only just been introduced and had assumed it was present from the first 2.5.6. Also, it appears all (or many) of the F-18 missions have been changed for 47224. Why? Who knows? What is going on? It appears that missions are having to be changed for each update. No wonder multiplayer missions which have always worked are now going wonky.

It's not just you. The landing lights now do not come on. They did for the same mission for me, flown exactly the same way, before the update. I have definitely called "inbound". Oh, bother.

Is it being acknowledged, though? I can't help but get the feeling that we're all shouting "the BIG problem is in missions with AI objects!", and that ED are testing with missions without AI objects and trying to fix the smaller problem. It just seems odd that none of the comments from ED mods / spokespersons ever mention AI objects. Lost in translation? Or maybe it's just me?

For the slowdown that seems to happen with AI objects present, it does seem unlikely. Perhaps someone could ask Kate Perederko to comment on this specifically? It's precisely what I'm talking about, when I refer to my "empty world" f-18 mission. I disagree that it's inevitable - the possible leveraging of new hardware features can often allow better graphics at similar or better performance. I reckon there's been a decrease in performance of approx 10% - 20% because of these improvements. It's been "hidden" because of the disastrous AI object frame rate drops. But, in VR, where every bit of performance counts, it is not insignificant. From the quote above, it seems that we're going to have to live with it. Quite clearly, I disagree with this statement, and I back it up with the screenshots I have posted. I'll wait for you to do the same, before I take your statement seriously.